Toldot | Last Come - First Served

     In this week's parasha an idea that has appeared as a subtle plot device earlier in Genesis surfaces as a dominant theme destined to remain a dramatic feature of the Biblical narrative.  I refer to the phenomenon of the success of the younger sibling at the expense of a family's first-born or older sons.  Twice so far, in the Torah the elder boy has been passed over in favor of his kid brother: in Genesis chapter 4 God ignores Cain, the elder's offering, showing preference for that of Abel, the younger.

 

In the course of time, Cain brought an offering to the Lord from the fruit of the soil; and Abel, for his part, brought the choicest of the firstlings of his flock.  The Lord paid heed to Abel and his offering, but to Cain and his offering He paid no heed.  Cain was much distressed and his face fell (4:3-5).

 

The reason for this favoritism is unclear, but its tragic result is well-known.  Did God want the younger brother to succeed in this story, or is the sequence of the boys' births a detail unrelated to the tale?

 

Ishmael is the first son born to Abraham, but from the start the reader knows that he is less important than the boy yet to be born.  When God promises Abraham another son, Abraham replies: "O that Ishmael might live by your favor!"  "Nevertheless," confirms God, "Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac, and I will maintain My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring to come" (17:18-19).  In this household we can explain that although Ishmael was Abraham's first born, he was, nevertheless, the son of the concubine Hagar, and was thus destined for a lower status than his half-brother Isaac born to Abraham's wife, Sarah.  Still, the Torah portrays Abraham's story as containing a strong measure of providence, leading readers to believe that the chosen son's birth was delayed until after one child was already born.  Why does God allow Sarah to suffer through the pregnancy and delivery of her handmaid, rather than give her the gift of Isaac as soon as it is time for Abraham to have a son?  Thus, we have our second example of the younger son deposing his older brother.

 

And now we reach parashat Toldot and the all-out war for primogeniture.  Unlike his father's defeat of Ishmael, Jacob's struggle to unseat Esau is a battle between two equals - the twins shared the same father and mother.  The first indication that the boys' relationship will not be a friendly one is the prophecy given to their mother Rebecca during her pregnancy.  After the two were conceived they struggled in the womb, and Rebecca said, "'If so, why do I exist?'"  She went to inquire of the Lord, and the Lord answered her: "Two nations are in your womb; two separate peoples shall issue from your body; one people shall be mightier than the other, and the older shall serve the younger" (25:22-23).  It is clear from this oracle that the destinies of the unborn fetuses have been determined by God who is also planning the order of their births.  Would it not be more natural for the older brother to remain supreme?  If God is somehow directing the futures of the twins, why not arrange for the dominant brother, Jacob, to emerge first, rather than announce that the more significant boy will be the younger one?

 

This pattern of the second or younger brother surpassing the older sons develops fully in Jacob's own family.  After he succeeds in taking his brother's birthright and blessing, the third patriarch runs away to his mother's family, there falling in love with Rachel, the younger daughter.  Jacob favors Rachel's son Joseph (child #12) over the first-born Reuven.  Later, in Egypt, Joseph attempts to win a greater blessing from his father on behalf of Menasheh, his first-born.  But Jacob insists on favoring Ephraim, saying of Menasheh, "I know, my son, I know.  He, too, shall become a people, and he too shall be great.  Yet, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall be plentiful enough for nations" (Genesis 48:19).  Choice of the younger continues beyond Genesis: Aaron the elder is at first passed over for Moses; all of David's older brothers are ignored when Samuel is sent to anoint him; Solomon is chosen by David to inherit the throne when fighting erupts among the king's older sons.  How can we explain this pattern in biblical families, and what can we learn from it?

 

We must dismiss any possibility that we are dealing with a phenomenal sequence of coincidences here - the chosen sons all displayed remarkable character and it just so happened that none of them was the oldest.  As mentioned above, from the Torah's perspective the process of conception, birth and selection is completely in God's hands.  Seeing that Leah was unloved God allows her to conceive first (29:31), opening Rachel's womb years later (30:22).  Of the families listed we must accept (at the very least) that God's guidance determines birth-order and subsequent preference in the sets of Isaac-Ishmael, Jacob-Esau, and Joseph-and his brothers.

 

Our issue becomes even more intriguing when we consider the Torah's frequent statements about the BEKHOR - the first-born son.  Following the striking of all the Egyptian first-born sons, the Israelite first-borns become holy: "The Lord spoke further to Moses, saying, 'Consecrate to Me every first-born; man and beast, the first issue of every womb among the Israelites is Mine'" (Exodus 13:1-2).  Later, in Numbers 3, a slight change is made whereby the duties of the first-born sons are taken over by the Levites, a move explained by the fact that this tribe alone refrained from sinning with the Golden Calf (see 3:11-13).

 

Nevertheless, along with the first-born cattle and first-fruits, the oldest boy retains a measure of importance among his brothers.  Here, for example, is the law of primogeniture as stated in Deuteronomy 21:15-17. "If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, but the first-born is the son of the unloved one, when he wills his property to his sons, he may not treat as first-born the son of the loved one in disregard of the son of the unloved one who is older.  Instead, he must accept the first-born, the son of the unloved one, and allot to him a double portion of all he possesses; since he is the first fruit of his vigor, the birthright is his due."

 

This passage may as well appear in Genesis 37 as an admonition to Jacob for the favoritism he shows Joseph: "Now Israel loved Joseph best of all his sons, for he was the child of his old age; and he had made him an ornamented tunic" (37:3).  I won't get into a discussion here on whether the patriarchs had any obligation to observe the Torah's commandments, but that doesn't prevent me from posing a question about the contrast between God's law and His repeated insistence on pushing aside the older child.

 

I cannot claim to be the first to identify or deal with the pattern I have been describing.  As such an obvious recurring detail in the Bible, it presents an irresistible subject for literary analysis.  Two recent treatments of the topic offer similar interpretations of the phenomenon.  An article in volume 60 of the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament (1993) by E. Fox is titled "Stalking the Younger Brother: Some Models for Understanding a Biblical Motif."  The author argues that the repeated choice of the unexpected child parallels the questionable choice of Israel from among the nations.

 

"What the major appearances of the Younger Brother motif have in common is that they are all distinguished by the inscrutable nature of God's choice.  Younger brothers do not appear to be selected for their merit, at least initially ... In the majority of [the] cases, the later specialness of the person - the qualities which divine foresight might have led God to choose them in the first place - often emerged in conjunction with suffering and not glory ... Given Israel's checkered history - in the Bible's terms, of faithfulness and infidelity - there must have been a strong sense of mystery, even anxiety, about God's choice of this people.  They were neither numerous (cf. Deut 7:7), nor militarily strong ... Deuteronomy repeatedly gives love as the main reason for Israel's chosenness alternating it with the 'merit of the forefathers' (cf. Deut 4:37), but neither of these reasons is based on a strong, independent sense of self.

"The Younger Brother stories are fraught with the danger of extinction, with the threat that the hero, and by extension, the community, may not survive ... the tension inherent in such texts is played out in a paradoxical manner: God chooses those whom one might least expect."

 

Fox has introduced into our discussion an element which I believe is critical for understanding any of the narratives in Genesis, namely that the lives and behavior of the patriarchs serve as models or prototypes for the future of their descendants.  Frederick E. Greenspahn has written an entire book on our topic called "When Brothers Dwell Together: The Preeminence of Younger Siblings in the Hebrew Bible."  In chapter 3 - "The Last Shall Be First," Greenspahn explores the theme's appearance throughout the Bible analyzing its meaning through comparisons to other literature.  This author understands the success of the younger brother to be a common feature in world classics.  The younger son is usually portrayed as weak, inexperienced and vulnerable.  He naturally elicits the reader's sympathy as he cheers for the eventual success of the underdog.  When he does rise to the challenges thrown at him, the younger brother encourages his fans to dream of future triumph in their personal lives.

 

In fact, writes Greenspahn "Years of story hearing have accustomed us to younger offsprings' success in overcoming impossible odds and overthrowing the shackles of oppression.  Rather than catching us off guard, the appearance of a younger son attracts our attention, signaling his eventual success, even as we wonder how that will be achieved."

 

What remains for Greenspahn to explain is how his idea is elevated from an interpretation of individual relationships to national dynamics.  Here, he contrasts the theme's message with the reality that Israel is often outnumbered and the weakest of nations.  Because Israel was not the first family to establish a nation and because it often suffers oppression, it seems at first, not to fill the role that the first-born should.  On the other hand, the option remains for eventual mastery over the nations - the younger sibling taking over.  "In the end, Israel was as unlikely a choice as the heroes of her past.  But like them, she believed herself both truly chosen and fundamentally deserving ... Very much at the center of God's world, Israel looks forward to a time when her political power, like that of the Bible's younger brothers, will match her theological status."

 

The above two similar approaches, however, seem unable to explain why, if the status of the younger brother can be altered through merit, and if the title of BEKHOR is transferable to the son who earns it, Deuteronomy 21 legislates against exactly this sort of favoritism?  And so, I would like to derive another lesson of hope from the younger sibling stories.

 

In my model too, Israel is the younger son but she remains in that position throughout the patriarchal period.  The choosing of the second son in the Biblical narratives is symbolic of the fact that Israel is God's second choice.  At the start of the Torah it seems that God's initial plan was to build a relationship with all of mankind.  The descent of man is here described by Rabbi Yissachar Ya'akovson (20th century) in the first volume of his opus on prayer - Netiv Bina (quoted is page 73 of the English translation titled "Meditations on the Siddur" prepared by Leonard Oschry).

 

The first part of the Book of Genesis (Chaps 1-11) already reveals what moved Divine Providence to choose a special nation.  All men are, after all, created in the image of God. Yet the sins of individuals (Adam and Cain) and of mankind as a whole (the generations of the Flood and the Tower of Babel) made it necessary to choose a specific nation to serve as the repository of the faith in God and to be dedicated to the fulfillment of His will - to prevent this faith from being obliterated from the face of the earth.  Hence the election of Israel became imperative on account of the disappointing behavior of mankind as a whole.  Scripture also predicted that all mankind will eventually come to acknowledge God.  Hence the prophet Tzefaniah asserts (3:9): "For then I will turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may call upon the Name of the Lord to serve Him with one consent."  Zechariah declares(14:9): "And the Lord shall be King over all the earth; in that day shall the Lord be One and His name one."

 

This interpretation of Genesis naturally leads to a sense of loss and perhaps regret that all the families of the world could not share the dialogue with God that the Israelites develop.  Really God would have preferred it if Plan A - the success of the early human communities - had worked.  These first generations would have then transmitted belief and trust in God to their descendants.  This, in fact, seems to be the role of the first-born son in a family, to lead the rest of the children in the years following the death of the father.  Several commentators suggest that this additional responsibility placed on the oldest, is the reason why he is favored with a greater inheritance than his siblings (see for example Abarbanel to Deuteronomy 21).

 

But alas, humanity failed and God had to go with Plan B.  A single, younger family was chosen to succeed where the older ones had stumbled - Abraham was picked to bear the torch of religion.  Successive selection of the second or younger son was a constant reminder that Israel was God's second choice.  It is with a tinge of regret that Ishmael is pushed aside for Isaac - why shouldn't all of Abraham's descendants join in the covenant with God?  In fact, every father in Genesis only reluctantly accepts the dominance of his younger son. Abraham protests to God that Ishmael can in fact carry the lineage (17:18); Isaac attempts to pass his blessing on to Esav only to be thwarted by Jacob (chapter 27); Jacob wanted Rachel to be his first - and only! - wife, and hence indirectly wanted Joseph to be his BEKHOR; and Joseph tells Jacob "'Not so, Father, for the other is the first-born; place your right hand on his head'" (48:18).  

 

Once the older nations abdicated their positions, Israel which began as the youngest son, had her status elevated to that of the BEKHOR.  God sends Moses to Pharaoh with this message: "Thus says the Lord: Israel is My first-born son.  I have said to you, 'Let My son go, that he may worship Me,' yet you refuse to let him go.  Now I will slay your first-born son'" (Exodus 4:22-23).  The Jews have now assumed the role as religious leaders, claiming to be a light unto the nations.

 

     But whereas the family dynamics of the patriarchs represented the imperfect history of man, the law in Deuteronomy prescribes a model by which individual families strive towards an ideal world.  In that world, the first-born has primacy and is not rejected; he assumes his role as leader of every generation taking the family of man forward to the next era when all people recognize God and accept Him as "King over all the earth."